2015 (10) TMI 84 - HC - Income Tax

Delay condonation application - delay in filing of an appeal before CIT(A) - Held that - On a consideration of the principles as laid down in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others 2015 (1) TMI 1053 - SUPREME COURT in the instant case, the 1st respondent has not considered the application for condonation of delay filed by the appellant in accordance with the decisions laid down by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, quash Ext.P4 order and direct the 1st respondent, to restore the appeals, stay application and the delay condonation applications to file, and consider the applications filed for condonation of delay afresh within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. There will be a stay of recovery proceedings against the petitioner, for recovery of the amounts confirmed against him by the lower authority, till such time as orders are passed by the 1st respondent, as directed in this judgment and communicated to the petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal and condonation of delay application.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition as an appellant against the order of the assessing authority confirming a penalty demand. The delay in filing the appeal led to the petitioner submitting a condonation of delay petition with an explanation for the delay. The 1st respondent dismissed both the delay condonation petition and the appeal, stating that the petitioner did not satisfactorily explain the delay. The High Court analyzed the legal principles governing condonation of delay as laid down by the Supreme Court. The court emphasized that when a claim is legally sustainable, delay should be condoned, and substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. Factors such as conduct, prejudice, and lack of bona fides are crucial in deciding on delay condonation. The court referred to specific guidelines from the Supreme Court to guide the assessment of delay condonation applications.

The High Court found that the 1st respondent did not consider the condonation of delay application in line with the principles established by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the court quashed the order dismissing the delay condonation petition and directed the 1st respondent to reevaluate the condonation applications within two months, following the guidelines provided by the Supreme Court. The court also ordered a stay on recovery proceedings against the petitioner until the 1st respondent's new decision is communicated.